Knowing And Intelligent Waiver

865 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 197 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mejia v. State
  675 So. 2d 996· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-06-18 ·cited 32×
  Carlos Omar Mejia appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and robbery, raising three issues: whether the trial court violated his right to be present during jury selection by failing to ensure an intelligent and voluntary waiver of presence at bench conferences; whether
• United States v. Morrison
  946 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 32×
  The court should have remanded for an evidentiary hearing regarding the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Golden v. Lanson Newsome
  755 F.2d 1478· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 32×
  A criminal defendant's escape during trial does not automatically waive their Sixth Amendment right to counsel at sentencing; the waiver must be knowing and intelligent.
• Witt v. Louie L. Wainwright
  714 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  Johnny Paul Witt was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1973 killing of an 11-year-old boy. On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of Witt's challenges to the admission of his confession, the Florida Sup
• United States v. Glasgow
  451 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and that his statements were voluntary, despite the interrogating officer suggesting he might receive a 'break' for cooperation.
• Blackburn v. State
  208 So. 2d 625· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-04-02 ·cited 32×
  Darrell Gene Blackburn was convicted of breaking and entering with assault and attempted crime against nature. He appealed on grounds that evidence of a similar prior crime (for which he had been acquitted) was improperly admitted, and that his statements to police were obtained
• Creech v. A.J. Arave
  947 F.2d 873· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 31×
  The panel erred in holding that Idaho's statutory aggravating factor of 'utter disregard for human life' is unconstitutionally vague, failing to give adequate deference to the Idaho Supreme Court's limiting construction.
• Copeland v. Louie L. Wainwright
  505 So. 2d 425· Fla.· 1987-04-09 ·cited 31×
  Johnny Copeland, a death row inmate, sought habeas corpus relief and appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all of Copeland's arguments, finding them either procedurally barred, previously decided, or la
• United States v. Harris
  683 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 31×·via Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel
  The court held that the record did not demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and competently waived his right to counsel, necessitating a new trial.
• Onnestad v. State
  404 So. 2d 403· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a defendant's unsupported allegation that medication impaired his thinking is insufficient to require withdrawal of a guilty plea, especially when the trial court questioned him about the medication's effects.
• Henry v. State
  937 So. 2d 563· Fla.· 2006-05-25 ·cited 30×
  Robert Henry appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion for relief and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in this capital murder case. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the denial of postconviction relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel at trial o
• W.M. v. State
  585 So. 2d 979· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-08-14 ·cited 30×
  A 10-year-old child was convicted of burglaries after confessing to police without a written Miranda waiver or parental presence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that a juvenile's confession is admissible if the totality of circumstances shows a knowing and v
• Goode v. Louie L. Wainwright
  704 F.2d 593· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court adequately addressed the appellant's competence to stand trial and to waive counsel, and that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. However, the court found merit in the claim that the trial court improperly rel
• United States v. Goodheim
  686 F.2d 776· 9th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government met its burden to show a prior guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and that the defendant's other arguments regarding firearm operability, photographic identification, alias inquiry, and consecutive sentencing were without merit.
• Fields v. Wyrick
  682 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 30×
  A defendant's waiver of counsel for a polygraph examination does not extend to subsequent post-test interrogation, and the government must prove a knowing and intelligent waiver for such interrogation.
• United States v. Christian
  571 F.2d 64· 1st Cir.· 1978-02-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the appellant's statement made during custodial interrogation should have been suppressed because he did not validly waive his Fifth Amendment rights, as evidenced by his signature placement on the waiver form. The court reversed the conviction and remanded fo
• Tyler v. Swenson
  483 F.2d 611· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-15 ·cited 30×
  District courts are required to consider exhausted claims in a habeas petition even if other unrelated claims within the same petition are unexhausted.
• Arnold v. State
  265 So. 2d 64· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-07-05 ·cited 30×·via Intelligent Waiver Of Rights
  A 15-year-old was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in admitting incriminating statements the defendant made to police after he and his parents had requested an at
• Williams v. United States
  443 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a guilty plea, if voluntarily and understandingly made, is conclusive as to guilt and waives non-jurisdictional defects, and that claims of ineffective counsel or involuntariness due to medication are refuted by the record.
• Meller v. State OF Mo.
  431 F.2d 120· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant's 1952 guilty plea and waiver of counsel were voluntary and intelligent, and that the Boykin v. Alabama decision should not be applied retroactively.
• McJORDAN v. Huff
  133 F.2d 408· D.C. Cir.· 1943-02-01 ·cited 30×·via Intelligent Waiver
  Appellant was entitled to counsel at his preliminary hearing and arraignment, and his waiver of this right was not intelligent.
• State v. Lebaron Mallory
  670 So. 2d 103· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-28 ·cited 29×
  The State appeals the trial court's suppression of Mallory's incriminating statements made after a computer voice stress analysis test. The appellate court reverses because the trial court's stated reasons for suppression were legally invalid, and remands for the trial court to r
• United States ex rel. John Williams v. DeROBERTIS
  715 F.2d 1174· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 29×
  A criminal defendant's ignorance of specific jury attributes, such as the right to participate in jury selection or the requirement of a substantial majority vote for conviction, does not render their waiver of a jury trial constitutionally invalid.
• United States v. Jordan
  870 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a federal prosecution following a state conviction does not violate double jeopardy under the dual sovereignty doctrine, and a state guilty plea is not rendered involuntary or unintelligent due to the possibility of subsequent federal prosecution.
• Hiram Eugene Meyer v. Sargent
  854 F.2d 1110· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 28×
  A criminal defendant's insistence on removing appointed counsel mid-trial, after being warned that no replacement would be appointed, constitutes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, especially when the motion appears obstructionist.
• Dunkins v. Thigpen
  854 F.2d 394· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of the petitioner's confession did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights because a break in custody provided him with an opportunity to consult counsel, and his waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
• Grooms v. J.C. Keeney
  826 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a suspect's confession was admissible despite invoking the right to silence earlier, as fresh Miranda warnings were given, and that the Oregon aggravated murder statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
• United States v. Richard W. (Dick) Rylander, Sr.
  714 F.2d 996· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 28×
  The majority reversed the conviction, finding the defendant was entitled to a jury trial and that the court failed to adequately explain the pitfalls of self-representation.
• Odell Hargrow Hill v. Estelle
  653 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 28×
  A state prisoner's claim of illegal sentencing under a new penal code, absent prejudice, does not raise a federal constitutional issue cognizable in habeas corpus.
• United States v. Dohm
  618 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Aponte
  591 F.2d 1247· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent, and even if it were not, the error was harmless due to effective assistance from appointed counsel.
• von Horn v. State
  334 So. 2d 43· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-06 ·cited 28×
  Curtis Charles Von Horn was convicted of first-degree murder for strangling Lois Long. He appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession, arguing it was involuntary and violated his Miranda rights. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding t
• Kelleher v. Henderson
  531 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 28×
  A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary or unintelligent under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because the defendant was unaware of the maximum possible sentence, if the record shows the defendant would have pleaded guilty regardless.
• Victoriano Melero v. State
  306 So. 2d 603· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-01-28 ·cited 28×
  The appellate court reviewed a judgment for second-degree murder, focusing on the admissibility of statements made by the defendant to a police officer before and after receiving Miranda warnings.
• Henry v. State
  134 So. 3d 938· Fla.· 2014-03-14 ·cited 27×
  Robert Henry, a death row inmate with execution scheduled for March 20, 2014, appealed the denial of his second successive motion for postconviction relief, challenging Florida's lethal injection protocol as applied to him, the constitutionality of the amended clemency statute (s
• United States v. Kelley
  712 F.2d 884· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-25 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial, and the judge was not required to recuse himself based on prior judicial knowledge of the defendant's attorney.
• United States ex rel. Charles F. Scott v. Mancusi
  429 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 27×·via Knowing And Intelligent Guilty Plea
  A guilty plea induced by defense counsel's good-faith, but erroneous, sentence estimate or misstatement of law regarding withdrawal does not render the plea involuntary, absent evidence of government inducement.
• Cravelyn Hooker v. State
  152 So. 3d 799· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-12-10 ·cited 26×
  Cravelyn Hooker was convicted of lewd or lascivious battery after a jury trial, but the trial court denied his unequivocal request to represent himself pro se, stating he was not sufficiently qualified by training, education, and experience. The Fourth District Court of Appeal re
• Johnson v. State
  994 So. 2d 960· Fla.· 2008-09-18 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with felony DUI has the right to a jury trial in the second phase of a bifurcated proceeding to determine prior convictions, and that such a right cannot be waived without a proper colloquy between the trial judge and defend
• Robinson v. State
  913 So. 2d 514· Fla.· 2005-07-07 ·cited 26×·via Intelligent Waiver Of Rights
  Michael Robinson, a death-row inmate, appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of all relief, rejecting Robins
• Vines v. United States
  28 F.3d 1123· 11th Cir.· 1994-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is fundamental and requires an affirmative, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. The temporary absence of counsel during a critical stage of trial, such as the taking of evidence, is a structural defect requiring automatic reversal unle
• United States v. Wright
  783 F.2d 1091· D.C. Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, finding no abuse of discretion in denying severance motions and no substantial prejudice from evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Anthon
  648 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 26×
  The third Miranda warning was inadequate, and statements made thereafter were involuntary, thus they should have been excluded.
• United States v. Sherman
  474 F.2d 303· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-01 ·cited 26×
  A guilty plea is valid even if the defendant is not explicitly advised of the right against self-incrimination, as long as the record shows the plea was knowing and voluntary.
• United States v. Curtiss
  330 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial due to errors concerning his waiver of counsel and improper prosecutorial comments on his failure to testify.
• Caminita v. State
  159 So. 2d 921· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-01-29 ·cited 26×·via Intelligent And Understanding Waiver
  An insolvent defendant moving for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is entitled to court-appointed counsel in the trial court, and a plenary hearing must be held to determine if rights were intelligently waived.
• Puckett v. United States
  314 F.2d 298· 10th Cir.· 1963-01-31 ·cited 26×·via Intelligent And Understanding Waiver
  The court held that the record did not conclusively show the appellant was not entitled to relief, particularly regarding his waiver of counsel.
• United States v. Hal Long
  866 F.2d 402· 11th Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Long and Kasch, finding that Long's consent to search and pre-arrest statements were voluntary, and that venue was proper for Kasch's possession charge under an aiding and abetting theory.
• Dolphus L. Dulin v. Henderson
  448 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel or understood the consequences of his guilty plea.
• Michener v. Johnston
  141 F.2d 171· 9th Cir.· 1944-02-28 ·cited 25×·via Intelligent Waiver
  The court held that the determination of whether there was an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends on the particular facts and circumstances, and the lower court's conclusion of waiver was not sufficiently supported by its findings.